On Saturday 15 Dec 2007, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > On 15-Dec-07, at 12:36 AM, Manish wrote: > > I share Kenneth and Kazim's thoughts. > > > > Attribution section of the license text at > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ says "You must > > attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or > > licensor". Since the licensor has not explicitly specified how he > > wanted to be attributed despite request, I do not know of the > > `correct' way of doing that. FWIW, it makes responding to his > > future emails a non-option for me. > > and now that in his latest mail he is claiming to be the copyright > owner of the phrase 'agree to disagree' and wants to be attributed > whenever someone uses the phrase, he has descended to the level of > the guy who has patented the use of neem twigs to clean teeth.
Don't you think you're overly trivialising the issue? By your logic, no one would ever be able to use the phrase ``agree to disagree'' in any copyrighted work after its first use in a copyrighted work. That just sounds so... wrong. BTW, you don't need to CC me replies -- I'm subscribed to the list and do get replies to my mails there too. Regards, -- Raju -- Raj Mathur [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kandalaya.org/ Freedom in Technology & Software || February 2008 || http://freed.in/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22/23, 2008 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
